Reconfiguring engine position (180 degrees) to increase torque (pics)

[Serebo1]

Obviously, Lotus got the engine position all wrong. Anyone who has seen the thing moving in the engine bay knows we're losing torque.

So, on this Saturday I dragged Allen from The LPL out of his place and asked him to open the shop to do the job. Not sure why he has this odd look on his face, but he's open to the idea.

Took a while to pull the engine, but we got it! Here we are lowering it back in to the CORRECT position. Why didn't the Lotus engineers think of this?!

Dyno to follow. I'll keep you posted. BTW, we did add an extra countershaft to the the transmission so it spins the right way. (saw that question coming)

[Demonized]

I'm confused.

[RoadDad]

If it's just the engine movement, why not just go with stiffer mounts?

[E_Swift]

This is interesting, but I am not sure why you would be expecting any measurable performance gains.

Instead, I would expect:

1) engine bay temps will be higher, probably not significant, however your back will be a lot warmer and you will need to foil the passenger compartment closeout panel
2) heat rejection needs to radiator and oil coolers will be higher
3) Exhaust will be longer and heavier than stock
4) Oil cooler lines will be slightly longer than stock, but probably counteracted by shorter coolant hose run.

The instantaneous "losses" you see of torque of the engine moving about the engine bay may be frightening, but I don't believe this will be measurable within the transient accuracy of whatever wheel dyno you will be using...

[Demonized]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

If it's just the engine movement, why not just go with stiffer mounts?

+1

[Serebo1]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

If it's just the engine movement, why not just go with stiffer mounts?

It's not so much about movement, as it is directional momentum, so even if we go with stiffer mounts, that forward energy will be lost.

[Serebo1]

Originally Posted by E_Swift

The instantaneous "losses" you see of torque of the engine moving about the engine bay may be frightening, but I don't believe this will be measurable within the transient accuracy of whatever wheel dyno you will be using...

Before we started, we hooked a measuring device (Spring and produce scale) to the engine, and the forward movement of the engine in the bay measured about 40 ft lbs. That's substantial, no?

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Serebo1

It's not so much about movement, as it is directional momentum, so even if we go with stiffer mounts, that forward energy will be lost.

Of course. What was I thinking? I'll shut up now.

[Corvus]

You guys are morons. Serebo is joking.

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Corvus

You guys are Mormons. Serebo is joking.

[RoadDad]

I just got a PM explaining the theory to me. Here's a link to the info that apparently started the thinking process.

180 degree transverse engine turn increases torque

Here's the pertinent stuff from the link:
wherein the stationary convex surface comprises a contour expressible in polar coordinates as R+(2*R sin(D/2)/(K*cos(D/2)+sin(D/2))), wherein K is a constant between 0.27 and 4.0, R is a length of a radius, and D is an angle of rotation of the radius about a point of rotation.

I think it's legit.

[E_Swift]

Originally Posted by Corvus

You guys are morons. Serebo is joking.

My Bad. This thread is actually just really REALLY funny.

[Serebo1]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

I just got a PM explaining the theory to me. Here's a link to the info that apparently started the thinking process.

180 degree transverse engine turn increases torque

Here's the pertinent stuff from the link:
wherein the stationary convex surface comprises a contour expressible in polar coordinates as R+(2*R sin(D/2)/(K*cos(D/2)+sin(D/2))), wherein K is a constant between 0.27 and 4.0, R is a length of a radius, and D is an angle of rotation of the radius about a point of rotation.

I think it's legit.

Exactly. Thanks, RoadDad. Every great innovator or thinker-outside-the-box is ridiculed until what they're doing proves to work, right? We've hit a slight roadblock - the repositioning of the charcoal canister. Anyone ever considered moving that thing?

[RoadDad]

Originally Posted by Serebo1

Exactly. Thanks, RoadDad. Every great innovator or thinker-outside-the-box is ridiculed until what they're doing proves to work, right? We've hit a slight roadblock - the repositioning of the charcoal canister. Anyone ever considered moving that thing?

Move it? That's too BWR/S111 supercharger.

How about delete it? It will throw some OBD codes but who cares? And who cares about the environment?

What about making it smaller? That will keep the codes away. Replacement with miniature charcoal cannister?

[tandemracer]

I checked my calendar - it says September, not April.

[fitfan]

it is true, i reveresed my transmisison and drive backwards now - 6 reverse gears and 1 forward. my 1/4 mile times dropped from the low 14's to the high 12's! now that the torq is going the right way... kinda of a pain driving backwards, but it was alot cheaper than the r&d to turn the engine around.

improved 1/4 mile with reversed transmission gears


if you don't believe me, here is the video to prove it !

[Serebo1]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Move it? That's too BWR/S111 supercharger.

How about delete it? It will throw some OBD codes but who cares? And who cares about the environment?

What about making it smaller? That will keep the codes away. Replacement with miniature charcoal cannister?

Actually, a replacement is exactly what we were thinking. Everyone here knows how much of a green-freak I am, so, we're working on a solution as we speak. The current canister holds 32 oz's. of charcoal, and we want to keep that volume. We think that the issue isn't the placement as much as the shape. Allen is finishing (off) the solution shortly. Pics to follow.

[Demonized]

Seems like slapping on a supercharger would be alot easier.

[Serebo1]

Originally Posted by RoadDad

Move it? That's too BWR/S111 supercharger.

How about delete it? It will throw some OBD codes but who cares? And who cares about the environment?

What about making it smaller? That will keep the codes away. Replacement with miniature charcoal cannister?

OK, problem solved for now. I'm a bit concerned about side/rear impact, but there are plenty more where this came from. In any event, it should do until our more permanent, yet similarly shaped replacement is fabricated.

[eurosport]

Hmmm, so this is why the Honda engined Elises are faster than the Toyotas...